Ladder Theory is bunk.

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Aight, I'm getting sick of hearing people make commentaries on my relationships and on their own based on the crap posted at intellectualwhores.com

Ladder theory, while a somewhat decent approximation of observed social interaction, is NOT the way things work. Think of inter-gender relationships as a basketball. And Ladder Theory is one of those silly boxes that they put basketballs in in retail stores so they can stack them up nice and pretty. It's a pretty decent approximation of the size of the basketball, but it completely distorts the shape. Anyone who's had a functional relationship and has paid careful attention to the nuances of what goes on should be able to agree.

The primary fallacy is that it reduces the emotions of everyone EXCEPT the cuddle b!tch to actual conscious thought. In addition, it completely disregards the existance of preferences... for everyone except the cuddle b!tch. Though the author never states what inspired him to write that crap... It should be pretty damned obvious.

why except the cuddle bitch?

 

[her209]

Ladder Theory is flawed in that it assumes everyone is equally shallow.

 

[Tuxic]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Eeezee
You should treat ladder theory like you should treat the Bible

I can use it to brainwash thousands of people?

:laugh:

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Aight, I'm getting sick of hearing people make commentaries on my relationships and on their own based on the crap posted at intellectualwhores.com

Ladder theory, while a somewhat decent approximation of observed social interaction, is NOT the way things work. Think of inter-gender relationships as a basketball. And Ladder Theory is one of those silly boxes that they put basketballs in in retail stores so they can stack them up nice and pretty. It's a pretty decent approximation of the size of the basketball, but it completely distorts the shape. Anyone who's had a functional relationship and has paid careful attention to the nuances of what goes on should be able to agree.

The primary fallacy is that it reduces the emotions of everyone EXCEPT the cuddle b!tch to actual conscious thought. In addition, it completely disregards the existance of preferences... for everyone except the cuddle b!tch. Though the author never states what inspired him to write that crap... It should be pretty damned obvious.

why except the cuddle bitch?

Because it was written by one.

 

[yhelothar]

I agree that it's general guideline. It's not an end-all explanation for relationships.

 

[Accipiter22]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
Aight, I'm getting sick of hearing people make commentaries on my relationships and on their own based on the crap posted at intellectualwhores.com

Ladder theory, while a somewhat decent approximation of observed social interaction, is NOT the way things work. Think of inter-gender relationships as a basketball. And Ladder Theory is one of those silly boxes that they put basketballs in in retail stores so they can stack them up nice and pretty. It's a pretty decent approximation of the size of the basketball, but it completely distorts the shape. Anyone who's had a functional relationship and has paid careful attention to the nuances of what goes on should be able to agree.

The primary fallacy is that it reduces the emotions of everyone EXCEPT the cuddle b!tch to actual conscious thought. In addition, it completely disregards the existance of preferences... for everyone except the cuddle b!tch. Though the author never states what inspired him to write that crap... It should be pretty damned obvious.

it's a framework that explains something AFTER it happens. DOesn't really let you predict results beforehand, or apply them for greater results.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Cliffs?

 

[timosyy]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: mugs
pics?

Since you asked so nicely Text

Cute.

 

[Rainsford]

Ladder theory is bunk because that guy from www.intellectualwhores.com is ugly as sin, and he looks a lot like some sort of stalker. Yes, yes, that doesn't mean he's wrong and all that logical rot. But I've got to wonder, he's obviously basing this theory on his own experiences, when it's pretty obvious he'd have the same results whether women had one "ladder" or two...his problem isn't that he's on the wrong ladder, it's that he's too far down the ladder to be datable by most girls he knows. Proponents of ladder theory seem to be largely the same way. Their problem isn't that they are on the wrong ladder, it's that they are ugly and obnoxious.

 

[Eeezee]

If by bunk you mean mostly true, then yes, it is bunk. It forgets to mention that women are all lying, manipulative bitches, so in that sense it does forget some details

 

[quakefiend420]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Eeezee
You should treat ladder theory like you should treat the Bible

I can use it to brainwash thousands of people?

LMAO

 

[mobobuff]

I've been in a very open relationship for about 3 and a half years. Never had any serious relationships before that. I can honestly say that this "Ladder Theory" (or what I've surmised of it) only accounts for the more meaningless parts of co-gender interaction, and would never come close to being accurate 100% of the time.

Mostly, it's just over-emphasized, over-compounded common sense.

 

[Lithium381]

Originally posted by: mobobuff


Mostly, it's just over-emphasized, over-compounded common sense.

Dr. Phil??!?!

 

[Siddhartha]

I looked at the Laddler Theory awhile back and decided it was useful. It told men who are unexperience with women that women have different motivations, agendas and approaches to relationships, sex, than they do.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Eeezee
You should treat ladder theory like you should treat the Bible

I can use it to brainwash thousands of people?

Yes. Yes you can. I mean, the turdburglar who wrote it certainly has.

 

[gigapet]

Ladder theory is essentially about value, whether percived or real. Low value/ low status males are placed on the lower rungs of the frienship ladder and the only way to cross over is if they become high value/ high status males.

When you supplicate to a women she puts you on the lower rungs of the ladder because supplication in itself is a means of expressing the idea "hey I'm not worthy of you because you have more value than myself so I'm going to try and coerce you through being overly flattering, nice and so on in order to trick you into thinking I am of high status/value"

its really not that complicated.

EDIT: This really is not a bunk theory. You will be very hard pressed to find a well adjusted high self esteem chick that will become romantically involved with a male of lower perecieved or real value. The male needs to maintain higher value in the eyes of the female to keep her attracted. You can lie and be decieving in order to achieve a temporary lay but once you stop the act and she sees you for what you are a low value male she will drop your ass.